Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

How many times has the Christian bible been changed?

Posted on: March 5, 2009 - 11:09pm

marshalltenbears

Posts: 223

Joined: 2009-02-19

Offline

How many times has the Christian bible been changed?

I have been doing research and I find it hard to get some good unbiased information. I am trying to find out how many times the christian bible as we know it today has undergone major changes. I also want to know how many books have been omitted from it and what has been added since it was originally written. All the information I come across is bias one way or the other. I just want facts not opinions. If anyone has good unbiased information on this, or some good links I would appreciate it.

tenbears.

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4

...but I'm fairly certain that a great deal would depend on what you count as "changes."

1. TRANSLATIONS: Personally, I wouldn't count these. But other folks say otherwise. Most translations--please note that I do not say all--are merely variant phrasings in English. This is why halfway serious Bible students are typically encouraged to get several translations; the various renderings will, at least in theory, help the student to get some idea of the intentions of the original text without necessarily having to learn Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and possibly Latin. One notable exception to this general "translations don't count" rule would have to be the Joseph Smith Version (aka the Inspired Version) of the Bible. Smith (via the spirit of prophecy, of course,) made outright *changes* to the text, in line with what he deemed to be "God's will." Another version you may wish to be cautious about is the New World Translation, used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

2. TEXTUAL ALTERATIONS: Ignore the assertions that such variations are "minor" and "don't affect doctrine." These variations certainly exist, and can be quite major. Did you know that Roman Catholics have longer versions of the books of Esther and Daniel than Protestants do? This is due to the inclusion of texts that Catholics call "deuterocanonical" (i.e., "secondary canon,&quot and that Protestants call apocryphal (i.e., "hidden," understood in a somewhat underhanded way.) Not to mention that the Gospel according to Mark has four different endings (of which the Roman Catholic Church accepts three as canonical.) That poetic introduction to John's Gospel? It, too, is an addition. For a more detailed look at Biblical text alterations--and their significance--I would recommend two books by Bart Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus is good if textual criticism is new to you; a more advanced, and detailed look at the issue is The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture. Both should be available through your local bookstore; if nothing else, they should at least be able to order them.

3. WHOLE BOOKS: I kind of hinted at this above, with the reference to the Catholic/Protestant divide, but Catholics accept, as Scripture, everything that Protestants do...and a few other things besides. The extra portions of Esther is merely a longer version of the story that you already find in Protestant Bibles. The "extra" portions of Daniel are sometimes known as the "Story of Bel and the Dragon" on the one hand, and the "Story of Susanna" on the other. (Oh, and the third chapter of Daniel in Catholic Bibles also contains a lengthy prayer attributed to the three men who were thrown into a furnace.) Aside from these, Catholics also accept the Books of Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch. Baruch, in Catholic Bibles, has six chapters (not the five you will find in some translations the sixth is the "Letter of Jeremiah." The Eastern Orthodox have some variation in their national Churches as to what is, and what is not, accepted as Scripture; the Eastern Orthodox accept everything that Roman Catholics do, and a few others besides. The Greeks also accept First Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Third Maccabees. The Slavic Orthodox accept Second Esdras. Nobody accepts Fourth Maccabees as Scripture; however, it is sometimes included in an appendix to Greek Bibles. (Why, I'm not sure.)

4. NONBIBLICAL TEXTS: Okay, you didn't ask about these. But I was, briefly, a Mormon. If you ask a Mormon whether or not he/she is a Christian, that person will tell you "Yes." And whenever you mention "the Scriptures," it may be good to know that a Mormon dialogue partner will be having the following in mind:

A) The Bible: Pretty much the Protestant KJV...but as previously mentioned, it has been altered by Joseph Smith on his "prophetic authority." These alterations are deemed Scripture, just as validly as any Protestant considers his "normal KJV." (I don't know what else to call it.) An interesting variation is that Latter-Day Saints don't consider the Song Of Solomon to be Scripture; it strikes them as being pornographic. Just the same, they include it in their Bibles anyway. Go figure.

B) The Book Of Mormon: This is basically an extended generational tale of a family that grew into two nations, which seemed to almost constantly be at war with one another. It is presented as "a volume of Scripture comparable to the Bible." Note that this is *not* the only such volume...

C) The Doctrine And Covenants: A series of "prophecies," mostly ones uttered by Joseph Smith directly to the life situations of early members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. A few come from later in the Church's history.

D) The Pearl of Great Price: This is a very slim volume composed of first, "Selections from the Book of Moses," and "The Book of Abraham," both of which are basically Joseph Smith inserting his own personal theology into the lives of Moses and Abraham, from the Biblical book of Genesis. There is also "Joseph Smith--Matthew" which is a collection of particularly extensive alterations to the Biblical text, and "Joseph Smith--History" which is basically a recounting of Smith's "First Vision," more or less.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

I have been doing research and I find it hard to get some good unbiased information. I am trying to find out how many times the christian bible as we know it today has undergone major changes. I also want to know how many books have been omitted from it and what has been added since it was originally written. All the information I come across is bias one way or the other. I just want facts not opinions. If anyone has good unbiased information on this, or some good links I would appreciate it.

tenbears.

For the New Testament the oldest source is the Vatican Bible and the second oldest is the Sinai bible. The former is available to select scholars only while the latter is in three parts in museums around the world. The NT is in the British museum so us English speakers have material describing it. A part of the OT is in a major Russian museum and the other part is in a museum I forget. I know of no material in English describing either of those parts. The Sinai bible googles nicely so I won't refresh my memory now.

Quick answer, a huge number of differences. For example, Mary Magdelin is not mentioned. The "save" is disclaiming the Sinai bible as not really a bible but just a collection. Problem is scholars who did not keep their mouths shut say there are massive differences in the in the Vatican.

There are other suggestions that the NT did not really stop changing until after the printing press was invented because of changes in prior NT books until that time. Of course one can blame it on creative copyists.

The collection of OT stories has the same problems. The Septuagint appears first in history and has a different collection of books than the later Judean collection. Roughly in the middle of the two Josephus tells the history of the Judeans from what is obviously a much different collection of books and stories.

What no one knows is when the idea of perfect copies came into existence. There is a claim it was always a Jewish tradition but Josephus clearly had a different version from the one Christians and Judeans have today. In addition he said there were only 22 books holy to Judeans.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I have been doing research and I find it hard to get some good unbiased information. I am trying to find out how many times the christian bible as we know it today has undergone major changes. I also want to know how many books have been omitted from it and what has been added since it was originally written. All the information I come across is bias one way or the other. I just want facts not opinions. If anyone has good unbiased information on this, or some good links I would appreciate it.

Every time a text was copied it ran the risk of being changed. That's the nature of copying a text by hand. These are usually casual changes -- a word was misread, a line was left out, transcription errors. As scribal practices became much more organized in the christian context these casual changes tended to be lest frequent, as each new copy seems to have been closely read after it was completed and changes were often made in a second hand.

Then there were more conscious changes: "Ooh, look there's that bit about the women they were going to stone. How come that isn't in our text? I'll fix that." or "We don't mention god's name any more so let's substitute 'adonai'." or "We shouldn't talk about the false god, Baal, so let's substitute B$T ("shameful thing&quot." or "Let's spell it consistently Nazaret rather than Nazareth." Bart Ehrman has gone into the subject of Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, ie the purposeful changing of christian scripture for theological-ideological reasons.

One could probably write a book as large as the bible itself on all the changes it has undergone. Despite an earlier mention that translations may not count, I think they count more than most of the regular changes. Changing text from one language to another guarantees the loss, addition, or manipulation of text within any document. The larger the document, the more significant the changes. Reading multiple translations does not allow one to piece the original together, it merely subjects one to even more changes than they were originally exposed to.

The time from the first hebrew writings to the first Cannonized version was over 1,000 years with over 40 authors and books left out. Not to mention the later versions to this date.

If we were to fast forward another 1,000 years, there would be even more.

The bible is a work of fiction conglomerated over time through the false belief that a god exists, combined with the multiple changing cultures over time. It is simply successfull, not because it is a real tool, but successfull because of successfull marketing.

The ancient Egyptians believed that "Ra" the sun god, was a thinking entity involved in their lives for over 3,000 years and a much older myth.

Worrying about the number of versions misses the point of human behavior. If you believe something is true, you will compete, borrow and steel concepts and ideas from prior cultures and surrounding cultures to sell your product.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

One could probably write a book as large as the bible itself on all the changes it has undergone. Despite an earlier mention that translations may not count, I think they count more than most of the regular changes. Changing text from one language to another guarantees the loss, addition, or manipulation of text within any document. The larger the document, the more significant the changes. Reading multiple translations does not allow one to piece the original together, it merely subjects one to even more changes than they were originally exposed to.

Not only translations themselves but even if exactly correct in the meaning of the words of the source that many languages now use definite and indefinite articles implies things which are not in the original. Should be it 'the god of our fathers' or 'a god of our fathers'?

And then there is the fallacy of not translating. Should Adonai be translated as a lord because the Greek is Adon or should it be left as the proper name of the god because Adon is not Adonai?

Another fallacy is an assumption of fact not in evidence. If we assume the OT writers were monotheists or even only worshiping one god then the referents such as Lord of Hosts and Lord of All are taken to refer to only one god. If we do not make that assumption they are different gods.

Even when learning the language to read the original text there is no safety as the meaning of words change over time. The early Christian references to the true god did not mean true or false but faithful and unfaithful or true love and false love. Unlike the pagan gods this god would not abandon its followers. It was not a fickle god.

When we consider the first unambiguous statement of monotheism came from Mohamed, there is no god but god, assuming polytheism among Christians and Jews prior to that and reading the original in those terms often makes more sense even in translation. For example, what is martyr and why? If there really is only one god what conceivably could it matter to burn some incense to a stone? Same with OT stories. What could it matter if they threw in a little Baal worship? Child sacrifice was NOT condemned as murder so it was apparently considered a lawful sacrifice. That it was to a different god is what mattered.

And then there is another problem. Ever notice people have trouble understanding their parents and even more trouble understanding their grandparents? Frankly we cannot think like our ancestors in our country only a century ago. We can come close with some study of their referents and idioms. Go back two centuries and find duels to the death. We cannot understand the motivation for them. We can only accept the reasons given. The problem gets worse the farther back in time and the more different the culture.

We cannot understand anyone from 2000 to 4000 years ago in an entirely different culture, period. Even if we were to resurrect an expert in what we have with us such as the OT from 2000 years ago, say a scholar-priest straight from Judea, infuse in him a perfect knowledge of English and get him to make a translation it would do us no good. There is no way he could convey the meaning of the words in a translation. The god threatens a drought. In our world all a drought means is the price of some foods goes up. In their world it was worse than our Great Depression in terms of death from hunger and even thirst. And the listener/reader of the threat has been through at least one or has heard of what happened in the last one as we heard of the Depression from our cultural wisdom.

What did sacrificing the first born mean? I have no idea. Why not the second born? I can see that it minimized the possibility of raising another man's child and for the women being exposed as unfaithful if the child grows up to have red hair. In an inbred community as were all outside of the cities any family characteristic would be much more noticeable.

But still it sounds horrible to us. Consider all the diseases children died from in those days. Not just died but after days or even weeks of suffering. And consider that half to two thirds would die that way. A quick sacrifice is a preferable manner of death. I am just speculating here but just from these two considerations child sacrifice would not be considered as strange as we consider it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Should Adonai be translated as a lord because the Greek is Adon or should it be left as the proper name of the god because Adon is not Adonai?

I'm sure most people already know, but when A_Nony_Mouse talks about Hebrew, a language he has no knowledge of, you can't expect him to say anything meaningful. The Hebrew word "adon", )DWN, means "lord, master". "Adonai" literally means "my master", eg Ex 21:5, 1 Sam 30:13, 2 Kgs 5:3, etc. The term gets applied to the Hebrew god, but mainly as a late substitute for YHWH. There are many examples in the Masoretic text featuring Adonai Elohim, yet the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical texts have Yahweh Elohim. It should not be strange to see that the name of a son of David, Adonijah, should mean "my master is Yah(weh)". It wouldn't be strange either to hear that there is really no Greek "Adon", but there is a Greek god, Adonis, of Semitic origin.

I do wish A_Nony_Mouse would stop showing his blatant ignorance with regard to languages and crap on about something else. He simply cannot expect to be able to sustain his silly theory about Hebrew and the Hebrew bible without having any of the prerequisite knowledge.

1.) THE ETHIOPIAN CANON--As another poster noted, this is indeed the largest Bible, and the only one to accept the Book of Jubilees as Scripture. (Shame on me for forgetting about this.)

2.) THE DIATESSERON--In the early Church's history, (I *think* the fourth century, but don't hold me to it,) someone did what was essentially a conflation of the four Gospels that we know. This conflation was the Diatesseron, and for a while, it was considered as possibly being Scripture. Obviously, the ultimate answer was "No."

There is that third century fragment of the Book of Revelation that says that the number of the Beast is 616. And I think that Ireneaus mentioned that there were versions of the Book of Revelation that said it was 665. The fact that multiple versions exist that contradict one another should really say something here.

Quote:

I also want to know how many books have been omitted from it and what has been added since it was originally written.

Well, lots and lots of books were written claiming to be factual accounts of mythical Jewish history or of Jesus's life. Most aren't included in the modern Bible since the creators of the Bible only wanted certain opinions about their religion to be considered the 'real' version. The Ethiopians have a far larger Bible than we do, since they count a few books as being legitimate that virtually all other Christians don't recognise.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India

THE DIATESSERON--In the early Church's history, (I *think* the fourth century, but don't hold me to it,) someone did what was essentially a conflation of the four Gospels that we know.

Just a little background: the Diatessaron was written by Tatian, died circa 180 CE. A fragment of a similar type work, ie a harmonization of the gospels, was found at Dura Europa with a strong dating of prior to 256 CE, when the city was destroyed.

Should Adonai be translated as a lord because the Greek is Adon or should it be left as the proper name of the god because Adon is not Adonai?

I'm sure most people already know, but when A_Nony_Mouse talks about Hebrew, a language he has no knowledge of, you can't expect him to say anything meaningful. The Hebrew word "adon", )DWN, means "lord, master". "Adonai" literally means "my master", eg Ex 21:5, 1 Sam 30:13, 2 Kgs 5:3, etc. The term gets applied to the Hebrew god, but mainly as a late substitute for YHWH. There are many examples in the Masoretic text featuring Adonai Elohim, yet the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical texts have Yahweh Elohim. It should not be strange to see that the name of a son of David, Adonijah, should mean "my master is Yah(weh)". It wouldn't be strange either to hear that there is really no Greek "Adon", but there is a Greek god, Adonis, of Semitic origin.

I do wish A_Nony_Mouse would stop showing his blatant ignorance with regard to languages and crap on about something else. He simply cannot expect to be able to sustain his silly theory about Hebrew and the Hebrew bible without having any of the prerequisite knowledge.

spin

So the 1st commandment reads

I MY lord am YOUR god

That clarifies a lot.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Should Adonai be translated as a lord because the Greek is Adon or should it be left as the proper name of the god because Adon is not Adonai?

I'm sure most people already know, but when A_Nony_Mouse talks about Hebrew, a language he has no knowledge of, you can't expect him to say anything meaningful. The Hebrew word "adon", )DWN, means "lord, master". "Adonai" literally means "my master", eg Ex 21:5, 1 Sam 30:13, 2 Kgs 5:3, etc. The term gets applied to the Hebrew god, but mainly as a late substitute for YHWH. There are many examples in the Masoretic text featuring Adonai Elohim, yet the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical texts have Yahweh Elohim. It should not be strange to see that the name of a son of David, Adonijah, should mean "my master is Yah(weh)". It wouldn't be strange either to hear that there is really no Greek "Adon", but there is a Greek god, Adonis, of Semitic origin.

So the 1st commandment reads

I MY lord am YOUR god

That clarifies a lot.

We know by now A_Nony_Mouse will never learn.

We were talking about the significance of Adonai and he comes out with the above warped gem.

The first commandment starts

I Yahweh am your god. )NKY YHWH )LHYK.

What this has to do with Adonai is certainly not obvious... other than the possibility that Adon means "lord" and Yahweh gets translated as "Lord", so not able to check out what the text actually says he makes another blunder, for some reason substituting "my lord" (the literal translation of Adonai) for Yahweh.

This is just more egg on A_Nony_Mouse's face: he wears it well.

Oh, give it up, A_Nony_Mouse. When you don't know what you're talking about, it's best not to advertise the fact.

Should Adonai be translated as a lord because the Greek is Adon or should it be left as the proper name of the god because Adon is not Adonai?

I'm sure most people already know, but when A_Nony_Mouse talks about Hebrew, a language he has no knowledge of, you can't expect him to say anything meaningful. The Hebrew word "adon", )DWN, means "lord, master". "Adonai" literally means "my master", eg Ex 21:5, 1 Sam 30:13, 2 Kgs 5:3, etc. The term gets applied to the Hebrew god, but mainly as a late substitute for YHWH. There are many examples in the Masoretic text featuring Adonai Elohim, yet the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical texts have Yahweh Elohim. It should not be strange to see that the name of a son of David, Adonijah, should mean "my master is Yah(weh)". It wouldn't be strange either to hear that there is really no Greek "Adon", but there is a Greek god, Adonis, of Semitic origin.

So the 1st commandment reads

I MY lord am YOUR god

That clarifies a lot.

We know by now A_Nony_Mouse will never learn.

We were talking about the significance of Adonai and he comes out with the above warped gem.

The first commandment starts

I Yahweh am your god. )NKY YHWH )LHYK.

What this has to do with Adonai is certainly not obvious... other than the possibility that Adon means "lord" and Yahweh gets translated as "Lord", so not able to check out what the text actually says he makes another blunder, for some reason substituting "my lord" (the literal translation of Adonai) for Yahweh.

This is just more egg on A_Nony_Mouse's face: he wears it well.

Oh, give it up, A_Nony_Mouse. When you don't know what you're talking about, it's best not to advertise the fact.

spin

The quote is from the Jewish bible and the equivalent of Ex.20,2

2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out ofthe abode of slavery.

In post #8 in this thread I gave several causes for different meanings simply by the chosen meaning for the word changing. An example is today using "true god" as the opposite of false when the original usage meant faithful as in remaining true to a cause.

I also noted the first explicit statement of monotheism is found in the Koran presumably dating from the 6th c. AD and there is no indication of monotheism.

Spin notes the stanard was created by the Masoretic text which was at least one thousand years after the OT appears in history. It was the Masoretic which added the vowel marks. As the assertion is that the meaning depends upon two vowels and as they were not added until at least 1000 years later I will stand by my statement that there are two possible meanings for DN. I expect something a lot better than assuming some sort of infallable transmission of meaning of material not in writing down through over 1000 years when a major change from our god to only god occurred along with many other changes both major and minor.

Further Spin suggests

Spin wrote:

The term gets applied to the Hebrew god, but mainly as a late substitute for YHWH.

and at the same time gives a different example from Exodus than 20:2 there are seven other usages of the name/word in the Big Ten. This is another example of the very late creation of the texts describing the earliest part of their history. Here he asserts a late usage is found in the "earliest" part.

As the assertion Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans and the Chaldean dynasty was founded by the father of Nebuchanezzar could only have been created after it had been largely forgotten when they dynasty was founded we can quite reasonably date the creation of both books into the Greek period. If something so recent as that were forgotten what possible credibility could the rest have as history?

As Adonis was a well known god in the region and in other names from Rome to Persia to Egypt that god is certainly in the running as we know for a fact the Judeans were polytheists into the 2nd c. AD. The for-certain other god was Astarte, Ashara, Aphrodite who is associated with the names of Adonis in a myth with a common thread of death and rebirth and which also includes the Jesus Mary story.

Now of one were to say it was all a pious creation for the edification of the faithful one could get a fair hearing. When I call a spade a spade and say it was a creation to promote a cult lead by greedy priests people have a problem no matter how great the preponderence of the evidence.

One can also read the description of the temple worship ceremony in Maccabes and note it does not match any reasonable conception of an OT worship ceremony but rather more like one we would expect to Adonis.

I do not see why people have all of these problems when atheists give NO special consideration to any religion. Immutable is not reasonable assumptions for any religion. The same people who delight in finding major changes in Christianity and accept them without the least skepticism are those who want immutability for Judaism.

Without any prior knowledge of this Jewish religion one would come across Adonai and Astarte and simply assume they were the local variations on the names of the divine pair used in Judea. It is only by considering the form of the religion that appeared at least a thousand years later that there is another possible conclusion.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I must have missed something significant, because instead of seeing someone helping someone understand a language he doesn't understand, someone instead attacks him for not understanding.

Anyone care to point me in the right direction for the source of this conflict, before I make a fool of myself?

The best defense is a good offense although the requirement that it be a good one is often forgotten. I usually come to ignore those who have nothing but attack instead of discussion. As I noted in a farewell communication to Spin he is not willing to put forward his explanation of anything rather only attacking.

Fact is no one has the "big picture" on this subject. There are only attempts to make sense out of what is known. I have correctly stated there is no way to fit the OT into the real history or achaeology of the region and no one has attempted to make it fit. Rather when I try to put it together there are attacks on little pieces of it. That is quite easy. It is almost as easy as shooting down bible literalists.

I am first to admit I do not even read Hebrew. But if he had said it meant our lord I could look at the Israeli party Yisrael Beiteinu which Israeli newspapers translate into English "Israel (is) our Home" and knowing Beit means dwelling place I would look for the einu as the suffix meaning our or close enough. I have many such resources. Literalists are often the richest sources of all. They are so eager to make one case they overlook the assumption on which their entire exposition hinges.

I hope some day one of them will have the cajones to actually spell out what they are talking about in enough detail that even I can understand it. It is not like I haven't asked.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

We were talking about the significance of Adonai and he comes out with the above warped gem.

The first commandment starts

I Yahweh am your god. )NKY YHWH )LHYK.

What this has to do with Adonai is certainly not obvious... other than the possibility that Adon means "lord" and Yahweh gets translated as "Lord", so not able to check out what the text actually says he makes another blunder, for some reason substituting "my lord" (the literal translation of Adonai) for Yahweh.

This is just more egg on A_Nony_Mouse's face: he wears it well.

Oh, give it up, A_Nony_Mouse. When you don't know what you're talking about, it's best not to advertise the fact.

spin

The quote is from the Jewish bible and the equivalent of Ex.20,2

2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out ofthe abode of slavery.

Reading the text from right to left you'll find אנכי יהוה, the first word on the right ALEF-NUN-KI-YOD and the second word YOD-HE-WAW-HE, ie YHWH, "I Yahweh...". Read my lips there pardner: Ex. 20:2 - does - not - contain - Adonai.

And I have the JPS Tanakh (2000) which also has, on page 155, both Yahweh and "LORD". Whatever your source it, it doesn't represent the text.

Reading the text from right to left you'll find אנכי יהוה, the first word on the right ALEF-NUN-KI-YOD and the second word YOD-HE-WAW-HE, ie YHWH, "I Yahweh...". Read my lips there pardner: Ex. 20:2 - does - not - contain - Adonai.

spin

THE TEN COMMANDMENTSComplete Jewish BibleTranslation by David H. SternExodus 20:1-171. Then God said all these words:2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.3. "You are to have no other gods before me. 4. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline.5. You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,6. but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.7."You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.8."Remember the day Shabbat, to set it apart for God. 9. You have six days to labor and do all your work,10. but the seventh day is a Shabbat for ADONAI your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work-not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.11. For in six days, ADONAI made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why ADONAI blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself.12. "Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you.13. "Do not murder.14. "Do not commit adultery.15. "Do not steal.16. "Do not give false evidence against your neighbor.17. "Do not covet your neighbor's house; do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor".

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Reading the text from right to left you'll find אנכי יהוה, the first word on the right ALEF-NUN-KI-YOD and the second word YOD-HE-WAW-HE, ie YHWH, "I Yahweh...". Read my lips there pardner: Ex. 20:2 - does - not - contain - Adonai.

spin

THE TEN COMMANDMENTSComplete Jewish BibleTranslation by David H. SternExodus 20:1-171. Then God said all these words:2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.3. "You are to have no other gods before me. 4. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline.5. You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,6. but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.7."You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.8."Remember the day Shabbat, to set it apart for God. 9. You have six days to labor and do all your work,10. but the seventh day is a Shabbat for ADONAI your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work-not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.11. For in six days, ADONAI made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why ADONAI blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself.12. "Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you.13. "Do not murder.14. "Do not commit adultery.15. "Do not steal.16. "Do not give false evidence against your neighbor.17. "Do not covet your neighbor's house; do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor".

There are none so blind as those with their heads rectilinearly implanted. When you want to look at the text, tell me. Otherwise you can continue in your ignorance. Stern is substituting "Adonai" for confessional purposes: it simply isn't in the text. BUT YOU WOULDN"T KNOW THAT. You haven't the ability to. You don't even have enough knowledge to know what the issues are.

Reading the text from right to left you'll find אנכי יהוה, the first word on the right ALEF-NUN-KI-YOD and the second word YOD-HE-WAW-HE, ie YHWH, "I Yahweh...". Read my lips there pardner: Ex. 20:2 - does - not - contain - Adonai.

spin

THE TEN COMMANDMENTSComplete Jewish BibleTranslation by David H. SternExodus 20:1-171. Then God said all these words:2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.3. "You are to have no other gods before me. 4. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline.5. You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,6. but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.7."You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.8."Remember the day Shabbat, to set it apart for God. 9. You have six days to labor and do all your work,10. but the seventh day is a Shabbat for ADONAI your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work-not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.11. For in six days, ADONAI made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why ADONAI blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself.12. "Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you.13. "Do not murder.14. "Do not commit adultery.15. "Do not steal.16. "Do not give false evidence against your neighbor.17. "Do not covet your neighbor's house; do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor".

There are none so blind as those with their heads rectilinearly implanted. When you want to look at the text, tell me. Otherwise you can continue in your ignorance. Stern is substituting "Adonai" for confessional purposes: it simply isn't in the text. BUT YOU WOULDN"T KNOW THAT. You haven't the ability to. You don't even have enough knowledge to know what the issues are.

spin

When did Stern tell you this? Can you produce the email?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Reading the text from right to left you'll find אנכי יהוה, the first word on the right ALEF-NUN-KI-YOD and the second word YOD-HE-WAW-HE, ie YHWH, "I Yahweh...". Read my lips there pardner: Ex. 20:2 - does - not - contain - Adonai.

spin

THE TEN COMMANDMENTSComplete Jewish BibleTranslation by David H. SternExodus 20:1-171. Then God said all these words:2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.3. "You are to have no other gods before me. 4. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline.5. You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,6. but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.7."You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.8."Remember the day Shabbat, to set it apart for God. 9. You have six days to labor and do all your work,10. but the seventh day is a Shabbat for ADONAI your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work-not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.11. For in six days, ADONAI made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why ADONAI blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself.12. "Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you.13. "Do not murder.14. "Do not commit adultery.15. "Do not steal.16. "Do not give false evidence against your neighbor.17. "Do not covet your neighbor's house; do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor".

There are none so blind as those with their heads rectilinearly implanted. When you want to look at the text, tell me. Otherwise you can continue in your ignorance. Stern is substituting "Adonai" for confessional purposes: it simply isn't in the text. BUT YOU WOULDN"T KNOW THAT. You haven't the ability to. You don't even have enough knowledge to know what the issues are.

spin

When did Stern tell you this? Can you produce the email?

If you could look at the text you wouldn't need Stern. But you need to believe him. Even when pointed to the Hebrew text online, you cannot deal with it. You won't look at the Jewish Publishing Society's authoritative translation, which comes with the Hebrew. Still you meddle in things that you know nothing about. Here is Ex 20:2:

אנכי יהוה אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים׃

make of it what you can. Show me the Adonai. Here is Gen 15:2 which actually has Adonai:

Considering you have agreed with everything I posted in the start of this thread but this point I have to consider it minor. So you claim the translator fraudulently presented this as a translation. And you want some website in place of a torah scroll which is considered the only authentic source.

Hardly important. You monotheists have your ways about yourselves. I started a new thread showing how simple all this names-of-gods thing really is. It is good to see you have such a clear understanding and should be the supreme ayatollah in these matters.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

It started off interesting, but then it just became the two of you trying to out do the other. Now are you just going to keep argueing with me as well? I was just asking it as a favor, from both of you.

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4

would both of you please stop arguing on this thread. Its going nowhere and plus I get email alerts everytime one of you post.

Thanks.

My apologies, you started this thread, not me.

I did post an answer early on as to the changes in the Christian bible. I did not limit those changes to the NT as the Christian bible includes the OT. I gave some essential changes in that. I have since posted on the names of the gods which have also changed in Christian versions. The name for this creature(s) was not consistent in the OT as that article shows.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

It started off interesting, but then it just became the two of you trying to out do the other. Now are you just going to keep argueing with me as well? I was just asking it as a favor, from both of you.

You lost track too.

I agree. I find the bickering approach annoying both for its fact and for reason I tend to respond in kind. I have started two other threads which permit a fuller discussion on the effects of the monotheist presumption against the facts. My interest has been in deflecting discussion to those threads rather than continuing the bickering in this thread.

I would rather explore the larger issues than details of who struck John.

Ex-theists carry much baggage with them from their theist days despite their best efforts. I am one of them.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I find the bickering approach annoying both for its fact and for reason I tend to respond in kind. I have started two other threads which permit a fuller discussion on the effects of the monotheist presumption against the facts. My interest has been in deflecting discussion to those threads rather than continuing the bickering in this thread.

I would rather explore the larger issues than details of who struck John.

Ex-theists carry much baggage with them from their theist days despite their best efforts. I am one of them.

All you need to do is drop the rubbish content, such as your preposterous claims about the Hebrew language and Jewish history. They verge on simple antisemitism, even to me, a not so pure Anglo-Saxon.

You must realize that not all roads lead to Rome, so you can't expect to get where you want while using what seem to be insidious arguments not based on evidence but whim. You show no knowledge of the scholarly debate either regarding the history of the group we call Jews or of their language. You seem unable to make sensible comments in either area.

I'm sure you don't need this stuff to make your points, so why not just get on with it and leave the crap content out?

I find the bickering approach annoying both for its fact and for reason I tend to respond in kind. I have started two other threads which permit a fuller discussion on the effects of the monotheist presumption against the facts. My interest has been in deflecting discussion to those threads rather than continuing the bickering in this thread.

I would rather explore the larger issues than details of who struck John.

Ex-theists carry much baggage with them from their theist days despite their best efforts. I am one of them.

All you need to do is drop the rubbish content, such as your preposterous claims about the Hebrew language and Jewish history. They verge on simple antisemitism, even to me, a not so pure Anglo-Saxon.

You must realize that not all roads lead to Rome, so you can't expect to get where you want while using what seem to be insidious arguments not based on evidence but whim. You show no knowledge of the scholarly debate either regarding the history of the group we call Jews or of their language. You seem unable to make sensible comments in either area.

I'm sure you don't need this stuff to make your points, so why not just get on with it and leave the crap content out?

spin

With apologies to marshalltenbears the truth cannot be antisemitic.

Without apologies to you, it is the refuge of a coward to claim disgreement is antisemitic.

I presume that is sufficient to end claims of antisemitism as I have and the world has a huge collection of semitic actions against other semitic people. All those semites can go to hell for all the atheist world SHOULD care.

But GEE WHIZ MR WIZARD all I did was point out the BULLSHIT of the translations of believers and the usages of the original sources and it is somehow antisemitic to do what, question?

Of course not. It is antisemitic to question without saying no matter what the conclusion they were really exactly the Jews of today if only we can find the right interpretation.

Judeans in Jerusalem worshiped Ashara whose temple was on the current temple mount. Read the priest of Yahweh who says her temple was there and who saw it there. That is a fact confirmed by archaeologists who are both jewish and Israeli.

Is physical evidence antisemitic to you?

Even from their own books they were genital mutilating savages among civilized peoples. They still are genital mutilating savages because they do it for the same reason as all the other savages, tribal membership. If you do not like it then there is a place the sun don't shine you can stick it. I don't want to hear about it.

You are among atheist. Special pleadings for Jews to not apply here. LIES about what I have said did not survive my return and a challenge to quote what I did say. NO ONE HAS TAKEN UP THE CHALLENGE!.

So stop trying to hide your silly superstious beliefs behind semitism. You are an atheist and you know for a fact ALL of the OT is bullshit else you are not an atheist. You are one of those fake Jews who pretends to be an atheist.

No one can be a Jew and an atheist. There is no such thing as a Jewish people. That is a recent invention of Zionism. I have invited anyone to present a single non-religious reference to Jews separate from religion by Jews prior to Zionism and not one single person has resonded, not even you. There is no such thing as a Jewish ethnic group and I have invited everyone to present a single ethnic characteristic independent of religion and not one single person has responded, not even you.

So please, deal with the larger issues and drop the bickering else I will have to get nasty and take away your holy holocaust and leave you as only the genital mutilating savage you are.

May all your Mikvahs be polluted with menstrual blood.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

All you need to do is drop the rubbish content, such as your preposterous claims about the Hebrew language and Jewish history. They verge on simple antisemitism, even to me, a not so pure Anglo-Saxon.

You must realize that not all roads lead to Rome, so you can't expect to get where you want while using what seem to be insidious arguments not based on evidence but whim. You show no knowledge of the scholarly debate either regarding the history of the group we call Jews or of their language. You seem unable to make sensible comments in either area.

I'm sure you don't need this stuff to make your points, so why not just get on with it and leave the crap content out?

With apologies to marshalltenbears the truth cannot be antisemitic.

Without apologies to you, it is the refuge of a coward to claim disgreement is antisemitic.

I'm sorry for your general state of confusion.

I'm also sorry that you can't find your own way out of your state of ignorance over history and philology.

Because it has nothing to do with Jews per se -- it's about a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Many Jews are against the existence of the state of Israel. Many others do not condone the acts of aggression of that state. You simply seem to be too deep in your sty of ignorance to understand the state of the world to get the facts straight.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I presume that is sufficient to end claims of antisemitism as I have and the world has a huge collection of semitic actions against other semitic people. All those semites can go to hell for all the atheist world SHOULD care.

I'm also sorry for your delusional state. I hope I didn't stimulate it.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But GEE WHIZ MR WIZARD all I did was point out the BULLSHIT of the translations of believers and the usages of the original sources and it is somehow antisemitic to do what, question?

Further delusion. You simply falsified history, made false claims, made claims that you have no evidence for or are capable of understanding the evidence for, and confusing it all with your political beliefs.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Of course not. It is antisemitic to question without saying no matter what the conclusion they were really exactly the Jews of today if only we can find the right interpretation.

It is anti-Semitic to make obviously false claims as you have that are aimed at negating the Jews as a whole, when you are ostensibly claiming Israel as your target.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Judeans in Jerusalem worshiped Ashara whose temple was on the current temple mount. Read the priest of Yahweh who says her temple was there and who saw it there. That is a fact confirmed by archaeologists who are both jewish and Israeli.

This is a perfect example of the sort of illogic you engage in. Ancient religious beliefs are not particularly relevant to your outlandish other claims.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Is physical evidence antisemitic to you?

When the physical evidence has nothing to do with your argument it is simply irrelevant.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Even from their own books they were genital mutilating savages among civilized peoples. They still are genital mutilating savages because they do it for the same reason as all the other savages, tribal membership. If you do not like it then there is a place the sun don't shine you can stick it. I don't want to hear about it.

For some reason you think that Jews are the only ones who use circumcision.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You are among atheist. Special pleadings for Jews to not apply here. LIES about what I have said did not survive my return and a challenge to quote what I did say. NO ONE HAS TAKEN UP THE CHALLENGE!.

You are the person who denies evidence right, left and center. You refuse to look. You have made no attempts to gain a scholarly knowledge of the materials you are meddling into. You remain the worst sort of amateur who not knowing better denies the scholarly positions because of preconceptions.

Would you care to thrill us with what you consider my "silly superstious beliefs" are?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You are an atheist and you know for a fact ALL of the OT is bullshit else you are not an atheist. You are one of those fake Jews who pretends to be an atheist.

I know you have a poor memory, for I have clearly told you before I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. My approach to the Hebrew bible is one of scholarship. Any reasonable person who has studied the material in its Near East context would not describe the work as "bullshit" -- which is quite an ignorant response.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

No one can be a Jew and an atheist.

I suppose you'll deny Carl Sagan's being Jewish. Why not check this out?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no such thing as a Jewish people.

That's a no-boner. Jews have lived in various communities for millennia and had become members of those communities, so obviously they weren't a single "people". They did however share many elements of a culture and a religion.

But probably I would find your use of "a people" suspect. Can Americans be called a people?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is a recent invention of Zionism.

Zionism might have had something to do with it, but I think the various Jews who decided to move to Israel elected on their becoming a people.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have invited anyone to present a single non-religious reference to Jews separate from religion by Jews prior to Zionism and not one single person has resonded, not even you.

Your memory fails you again. I pointed you to Trotsky. You are just too self-absorbed with your overgeneralization to get in contact with the real world.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no such thing as a Jewish ethnic group and I have invited everyone to present a single ethnic characteristic independent of religion and not one single person has responded, not even you.

The notion of an "ethnic group" is your burden. Only racists these days seem to be interested in ethnic groups. The rest of us are more open to "multiculturalism".

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

So please, deal with the larger issues and drop the bickering else I will have to get nasty and take away your holy holocaust and leave you as only the genital mutilating savage you are.

When you can make a statement that is not laden with either error and brutal stupidity, then perhaps someone might leave you to say whatever it is you really and truly think people should be interested in. As is, you seem just like a geriatric juvenile who can do nothing more than try to offend as many people as he thinks he can get away with. Case in point:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

May all your Mikvahs be polluted with menstrual blood.

Is this where you came from?

Or are you just one of those sad, sorry puppies who can't find any other way to deal with their personal frustrations than to stormfront some Jews?

It started off interesting, but then it just became the two of you trying to out do the other. Now are you just going to keep argueing with me as well? I was just asking it as a favor, from both of you.

I can help with that.

While in this topic, go to one of your posts. Click on your name above where your avatar would be if you had one. You will find yourself looking at your profile. There will be four tabbed options: View / Edit / Subscriptions / Track. Click on Subscriptions. There are four sub categories. You're probably on the right one, but if not, the categories are: Threads / Blogs / Categories / Content Types / RSS Feeds. You want Threads. Now find the check mark beside this topic name, and uncheck it. Then click the save button at the bottom of the list. No more emails.

I suppose you'll deny Carl Sagan's being Jewish. Why not check this out?

A Jew is a follower of Judaism, period. An atheist cannot be a Jew any more than a Christian can be an atheist.

If Sagan said otherwise he was an idiot.

We all know who the idiot is. As predicted you'd deny Sagan's Jewishness. As one would expect, you didn't check the link which pointed you to a Wiki page on Jewish atheist, which in turn pointed you to further examples of Jewish atheists.

You know that Jews who are atheists do not fit your profile of Jews so they cannot be Jews despite being Jews, so you throw around vacuous periods and keep your head firmly buried in the sand so that you cannot see that your idiosyncratic claims are not worth the paper they're written on. You are so thick you've told Jews that they cannot be atheists, because of your beliefs. Religion is reflection of Jewishness not a necessary condition for being Jewish. Why don't you ask some Jews rather than talking through your ass every time you withdraw your head from it?

Here deny that these people are/were both Jewish and atheists:

Sigmund Freud

Karl Marx

Trotsky

Emma Goldman

Albert Einstein

Carl Sagan (well, agnostic)

Richard Feynman

Neil Postman

Isaac Asimov

Jacques Derrida

Steven Weinberg

Woody Allen

Noam Chomsky

David Cronenberg

and a host of others. Deny them all. Obviously we know who the idiot is.

I suppose you'll deny Carl Sagan's being Jewish. Why not check this out?

A Jew is a follower of Judaism, period. An atheist cannot be a Jew any more than a Christian can be an atheist.

If Sagan said otherwise he was an idiot.

We all know who the idiot is. As predicted you'd deny Sagan's Jewishness. As one would expect, you didn't check the link which pointed you to a Wiki page on Jewish atheist, which in turn pointed you to further examples of Jewish atheists.

You know that Jews who are atheists do not fit your profile of Jews so they cannot be Jews despite being Jews, so you throw around vacuous periods and keep your head firmly buried in the sand so that you cannot see that your idiosyncratic claims are not worth the paper they're written on. You are so thick you've told Jews that they cannot be atheists, because of your beliefs. Religion is reflection of Jewishness not a necessary condition for being Jewish. Why don't you ask some Jews rather than talking through your ass every time you withdraw your head from it?

Here deny that these people are/were both Jewish and atheists:

Sigmund Freud

Karl Marx

Trotsky

Emma Goldman

Albert Einstein

Carl Sagan (well, agnostic)

Richard Feynman

Neil Postman

Isaac Asimov

Jacques Derrida

Steven Weinberg

Woody Allen

Noam Chomsky

David Cronenberg

and a host of others. Deny them all. Obviously we know who the idiot is.

spin

A list of Christian atheists would be much longer.

Why would I be concerned with the delusions of others?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I suppose you'll deny Carl Sagan's being Jewish. Why not check this out?

A Jew is a follower of Judaism, period. An atheist cannot be a Jew any more than a Christian can be an atheist.

If Sagan said otherwise he was an idiot.

We all know who the idiot is. As predicted you'd deny Sagan's Jewishness. As one would expect, you didn't check the link which pointed you to a Wiki page on Jewish atheist, which in turn pointed you to further examples of Jewish atheists.

You know that Jews who are atheists do not fit your profile of Jews so they cannot be Jews despite being Jews, so you throw around vacuous periods and keep your head firmly buried in the sand so that you cannot see that your idiosyncratic claims are not worth the paper they're written on. You are so thick you've told Jews that they cannot be atheists, because of your beliefs. Religion is reflection of Jewishness not a necessary condition for being Jewish. Why don't you ask some Jews rather than talking through your ass every time you withdraw your head from it?

Here deny that these people are/were both Jewish and atheists:

Sigmund Freud

Karl Marx

Trotsky

Emma Goldman

Albert Einstein

Carl Sagan (well, agnostic)

Richard Feynman

Neil Postman

Isaac Asimov

Jacques Derrida

Steven Weinberg

Woody Allen

Noam Chomsky

David Cronenberg

and a host of others. Deny them all. Obviously we know who the idiot is.

spin

A list of Christian atheists would be much longer.

Why would I be concerned with the delusions of others?

You obviously aren't concerned over your own delusions. It's telling when you manipulate language to deceive yourself.

Which leads the bewildered to ask what makes him or anyone a Jew who does not follow Judaism.

The question has another side. What makes a Jew if following Judaism is not required? Obama does not follow Judaism. Why is he not a Jew?

As an American I know what is meant in this country by an ethnic Jew. It means a New Yorker from a Jewish background. There are slight variations of this in Miami and LA. A New York Jew means nothing outside the US and is despised in Israel unless they are bringing money either legally or to fight extradition.

Despised because they buy their way into political control of the country but don't put their fat, pink butts on the line by living there. New York Jews are the epitome of the old Zionist joke. A Zionist is a Jew who collects money from another Jew to send a third Jew to Palestine.

As a civil law Jew from Israel noted, without an external enemy the Jews in Israel would tear themselves and the country apart in civil war.

That is another reason New York Jews are despised in Israel, they are Reform and not considered religious Jews even if observant. Rather they are only only civil law Jews in Israel. And the NYC Jews are in constant conflict with the real religious Jews of Israel. The real Jews are superior as they are Jews by the Torah rather than by civil law. They know civil law has no bearing upon the law of Moses.

Of course Spin has his own spin on the facts which is different from what is reported in online Israeli newspapers.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

As an American I know what is meant in this country by an ethnic Jew. It means a New Yorker from a Jewish background.

Gosh, there, A_Nony_Mouse, whatever do you mean "from a Jewish background"? Is this just tautology or do mean something like "shared cultural background"?...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There are slight variations of this in Miami and LA. A New York Jew means nothing outside the US and is despised in Israel unless they are bringing money either legally or to fight extradition.

...I guess it must have been the tautology. And here you are talking through your anus as usual.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Despised because they buy their way into political control of the country but don't put their fat, pink butts on the line by living there. New York Jews are the epitome of the old Zionist joke. A Zionist is a Jew who collects money from another Jew to send a third Jew to Palestine.

As a civil law Jew from Israel noted, without an external enemy the Jews in Israel would tear themselves and the country apart in civil war.

That is another reason New York Jews are despised in Israel, they are Reform and not considered religious Jews even if observant. Rather they are only only civil law Jews in Israel. And the NYC Jews are in constant conflict with the real religious Jews of Israel. The real Jews are superior as they are Jews by the Torah rather than by civil law. They know civil law has no bearing upon the law of Moses.

Somewhere behind this semi-babble is the realization that there is more to this being Jewish thing than either religion or biology.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Of course Spin has his own spin on the facts which is different from what is reported in online Israeli newspapers.

Too bad you wanna be selective with facts. It just makes you "the mouse that bored".

There's nothing to being a jew at all. The self propagated idea that they have a distinct ethnic background which is different from anyone else is ludicrous. They are as human as I, and they have as much difference to me as a black or hispanic or even a caucasian.

There's nothing to being a jew at all. The self propagated idea that they have a distinct ethnic background which is different from anyone else is ludicrous. They are as human as I, and they have as much difference to me as a black or hispanic or even a caucasian.

What is perhaps most perverted about the idea is it ignores most Jews. Ululating Jews are the majority. The NYC minority applauds. They seem to think Yiddish is part of that culture even though Israel virtually outlawed its use.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I'll take a stab at it. A person is a cultural Jew if they believe: a) that "A Jew is someone born from a Jewish mother." b) that they were born from a Jewish mother, and c) that "I am a Jew."

I think that pretty much sums up the popular idea of cultural Jewishness. I happen to agree with the minor point that this 'cultural Jewishness' has embedded within it an invalid racist idea that there is such a thing as a Jewish race/people. However, the 'culture' of Jewishness does exist, as there are people who believe they are Jews according to the above beliefs.

It is similar to Black culture. There is no 'black' race, but there is a Black culture, in the sense that there are people who have dark skin who think this signifies that they are part of a 'Black' race. There are in fact all different kinds of Black culture, such that they have next to nothing in common (consider 'Blacks' from America vs. 'Blacks' from Africa or the Netherlands or elsewhere), but there is a unifying quality of people who think they belong to a 'Black' race. I think this closely parallels Jewish culture, and for that matter 'White' culture, or any other racial/ethnic culture.

What both Natural and Spin have said. It's a cultural thing. Yes, it's often tied to religion, but it is more than that.

By the way, I should have been clearer in my earlier post. I was agreeing with Spin, my "qualm" was just me nitpicking the labeling of labeling Sagan as an agnostic and nothing else.

A_Nony, this particular point is probably not the best to argue over. There is a Jewish culture, at least in the United States, that exists. Right or wrong, rational or not, it exists. And it would exist with or without religion at this point, though if Judaism suddenly disappeared the cultural group would likely disappear over time, probably at least several generations. But the imagined cultural bond wouldn't immediately shatter.

If Natural's explanation isn't good enough for you, we can nitpick this...but is this *really* the battle you want to fight? This particular point?

I'll take a stab at it. A person is a cultural Jew if they believe: a) that "A Jew is someone born from a Jewish mother." b) that they were born from a Jewish mother, and c) that "I am a Jew."

Born of a "jewish" mother is a religious concept. Therefore it does not define a culture independent of religion.

It also lays the idea wide open to reducio ad absurdum if I ask what constitutes a "jewish" mother on back to the beginning. You can have all the atheist mothers you want in that ancestry but at some point it had a woman who was a follower of Judaism and therefore it is not a cultural but a religious definition.

Beyond all the above you have described a personal belief, a self-declaration, not a culture. I am open to a "culture of idiocy" but I don't think that is what you have in mind.

natural wrote:

I think that pretty much sums up the popular idea of cultural Jewishness. I happen to agree with the minor point that this 'cultural Jewishness' has embedded within it an invalid racist idea that there is such a thing as a Jewish race/people. However, the 'culture' of Jewishness does exist, as there are people who believe they are Jews according to the above beliefs.

But you have not described a culture. You have said that individual beliefs based solely upon the religious tradition of the RELIGION of the birth mother is the ONLY factor and that does not constitute a culture in any manner.

natural wrote:

It is similar to Black culture. There is no 'black' race, but there is a Black culture, in the sense that there are people who have dark skin who think this signifies that they are part of a 'Black' race. There are in fact all different kinds of Black culture, such that they have next to nothing in common (consider 'Blacks' from America vs. 'Blacks' from Africa or the Netherlands or elsewhere), but there is a unifying quality of people who think they belong to a 'Black' race. I think this closely parallels Jewish culture, and for that matter 'White' culture, or any other racial/ethnic culture.

I, myself, thought Steve Martin quite trashed the idea of self-declaration of being a Nigger in The Jerk. If you have never seen the uncut original, rent it. I think the original has not censored out the word nigger. One of the funniest scenes in movie history hinges on the use of the word nigger and it is cut from even HBO airings for political correctness.

Please try again.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

What both Natural and Spin have said. It's a cultural thing. Yes, it's often tied to religion, but it is more than that.

And I am asking what there is more than religion and no one has an answer that rises to the level of a village idiot.

Balkoth wrote:

By the way, I should have been clearer in my earlier post. I was agreeing with Spin, my "qualm" was just me nitpicking the labeling of labeling Sagan as an agnostic and nothing else.

A_Nony, this particular point is probably not the best to argue over.

I am well aware there are a bunch of idiots who have declared they are an ethnic group and anyone who does not bow to that idiotic statement is declared antisemitic. If believing such nonsense is the only way to avoid being antisemitic than everyone with an IQ above room temperature is antisemitic.

Balkoth wrote:

There is a Jewish culture, at least in the United States, that exists. Right or wrong, rational or not, it exists. And it would exist with or without religion at this point, though if Judaism suddenly disappeared the cultural group would likely disappear over time, probably at least several generations. But the imagined cultural bond wouldn't immediately shatter.

Even IF there were a single Jewish culture in the US that would not apply to all Jews in the world and therefore there is no single jewish culture. As there is no single Jewish culture then the only thing which unites all Jews is the religion.

This sort of thing comes in several varieties in IQ tests. What do all these things have in common? What is the only thing which all Jews have in common? It is the religion.

So consider this a very elementary IQ test. I have told the others they are wrong and giving them a chance to demonstrate there is something other than religion which is shared by all Jews.

I am tempted to point out you are either not a US citizen or know next to nothing about Jews in the US. If there is a single culture for Jews in the US is it Reform from TV and movies? Or is it Hasidic who condemn both as sinful and would never watch either much less be involved in creating such sin? Is it Mayor Bloomberg who actually shakes hands with women or the Jewish man who is unclean if touched by any woman who is not his wife? Those are at least two cultures in just one city of New York. So there is no single culture.

Don't tell me it does not matter. If there is a Jewish culture, which one is Jewish and which is not? BTW, the Hasidic do NOT accept atheists as Jews. Now you have a real problem deciding which is THE single jewish culture. If you pick the Hasids they agree with me that an atheist cannot be a Jew, that it is only a religion, and that Zionists are heretics.

Balkoth wrote:

If Natural's explanation isn't good enough for you, we can nitpick this...but is this *really* the battle you want to fight? This particular point?

I simply said that atheists cannot be Jews and that nothing but the religion makes Jews a definable group. But there are atheists who are wedded to the idiot idea that they are STILL Jews even though atheists.

I merely gave word to the obvious. Atheists cannot be Jews. Some idiots then claimed there was a Jewish culture or ethnic group. I simply asked for the culture or ethnicity to be defined without reference to religion for them to show me they are correct. So far they have failed to show they are correct.

The only thing these folks have to fall back on self-declaration. If that is what makes a Jew then the Pope can be a Jew if he says he is. Self-declaration is not a rational criteria.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I'll take a stab at it. A person is a cultural Jew if they believe: a) that "A Jew is someone born from a Jewish mother." b) that they were born from a Jewish mother, and c) that "I am a Jew."

Born of a "jewish" mother is a religious concept. Therefore it does not define a culture independent of religion.

The origin of the idea is irrelevant. It is not currently tied to religion. You can believe that idea without following any religion, just as you can believe that there is a single creator of the universe without being a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Many of these are called Deists, and they don't have a religion per se. Similarly, you can be a cultural Jew without belonging to the Jewish religion.

Quote:

It also lays the idea wide open to reducio ad absurdum if I ask what constitutes a "jewish" mother on back to the beginning.

That's why I included the third belief, that "I am a Jew." this allows anyone to believe that they are a Jew, without there actually being a distinct Jewish race. It is similar to the idea that "I am a human", and "A human is someone who was born of human parents". Whether these are rational or absurd is irrelevant. People believe irrational and absurd things all the time.

People believe in the Trinity, which is equally absurd, but they still believe it.

Quote:

You can have all the atheist mothers you want in that ancestry but at some point it had a woman who was a follower of Judaism and therefore it is not a cultural but a religious definition.

Notice that I did not reference anything *actual*, only what the person believes. Cultural Jewishness, according to my formulation is based on belief, which is the only way that culture can apply to a person.

Money has cultural value because we *believe* it has value. There is nothing inherent about a piece of paper that makes it 5, 10, or 50 times more valuable than another very similar piece of paper. It is the cultural beliefs we have about money that make money *actually* valuable.

Same with cultural identification. I am Canadian because I and other Canadians have a particular cultural belief about what it means to be Canadian, and I and they also believe that I fit that cultural criterion. Maybe I'm really a space alien or a robot. It doesn't matter, because we all believe that I'm a natural-born Canadian. And that's what makes me *actually* Canadian.

Jews believe that Jewishness comes from being born from a Jewish mother. (They may also have other criteria which are less well-known, such as however they made Sammy Davis Jr. a 'Jew'.) That is what they define as their Jewish identity. It is based on what they believe, just like any other cultural identity.

A person of Black culture believes he/she belongs to a 'Black' race. This is not actually true, but it is what they believe, and that's what defines their culture. The culture is real even if the race is not.

Quote:

Beyond all the above you have described a personal belief, a self-declaration, not a culture.

I challenge you: Name one culture that is not based on beliefs.

Quote:

But you have not described a culture. You have said that individual beliefs based solely upon the religious tradition of the RELIGION of the birth mother is the ONLY factor and that does not constitute a culture in any manner.

It is not based on her religion. It's based on her cultural Jewishness. A female culturally Jewish non-religious atheist can have children, and those children will be considered culturally Jewish. They may even (likely) grow up believing they are culturally Jewish. And if they do, then they are.

Quote:

I, myself, thought Steve Martin quite trashed the idea of self-declaration of being a Nigger in The Jerk.

Your use of 'Nigger' here is quite distasteful. If you are merely using it in reference to the language used in the movie, please make it more clear next time.

First, I'm talking about 'Black' culture, and by that I mean the belief that there is a 'Black' race. The 'race' is defined by skin tone (mostly), and so it is difficult for someone who has a pale skin tone like Steve Martin to genuinely believe he belongs to the 'race' under this criterion.

If you want to use a better example, look at someone like Eminem, who shares a lot more culturally with American 'Black' culture than any other person I know. However, he doesn't meet the cultural criterion of having dark skin, so most people do not accept him as 'Black'. (I wonder how he feels about it, actually.)

Quote:

If you have never seen the uncut original, rent it. I think the original has not censored out the word nigger. One of the funniest scenes in movie history hinges on the use of the word nigger and it is cut from even HBO airings for political correctness.

It is actually one of my all-time favourites. Doesn't help your argument, though.

Quote:

Please try again.

Right back atcha. I don't think you've put up a serious counter-argument. If you can point to a single culture that is not based on beliefs, maybe you'll have something.

You are hung up on the idea of Jewish religion defining Jewishness. It may have been that way at one time, but it is not that way now.